WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2009-03-04 Time: 19:00:04 Posted By: Jan
Cape Town – A single mother who needed an attorney to represent her son ended up with a phony lawyer who allegedly conned her out of R1 000, the Bellville Specialised Commercial Crime Court heard on Wednesday.
Mildred van der Scholtz, at the time a student-mentor in the employ of a paralegal college, told the court she had consulted Hugh Pollard for her son.
Pollard had claimed in newspaper advertisements to be an “affordable lawyer”.
Asked by prosecutor Mary Naidoo how she felt when she discovered Pollard was an impostor, she told the court: “It left me cold to know that he was not a lawyer – it tells me he has no heart.”
Pollard has pleaded not guilty before Magistrate Amrith Chabilall, to 30 counts of fraud involving R87 000.
Van der Scholtz said she went by train to Simons Town, where Pollard met her at the railway station and drove her to his home nearby.
She said the office at his home was stacked with files, and that she had “absolutely no reason to doubt that he was in fact a lawyer”.
During the first consultation, she asked Pollard why he charged so little – he wanted R1 000 immediately, and a further R2 000 the next day – and he said he only charged for administrative work pertaining to her case, and that he did the legal work free, “out of the goodness of his heart”.
At the first consultation, she told Pollard the case against her son had no merits, and she needed a competent lawyer to make representations to the prosecuting authorities for the withdrawal of the charge.
She said her son had been scheduled to appear in the Wynberg Magistrate’s Court, and Pollard had undertaken to represent him at that appearance but, if unable to, a colleague would stand in for him.
Van der Scholtz said she had been unable to attend the hearing herself, but her son, who was in custody, had later informed her that neither Pollard nor his replacement had been in court.
When she confronted Pollard about this, he said he had been in another court, that the colleague had stood in for him and that her son was lying.
She later established from the Cape Law Society that Pollard’s name had in fact been removed from the Attorneys’ Roll – prior to her consultation with him – and that he was no longer permitted to practice.
The trial continues on Thursday. – Sapa
Source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=nw20090304160326836C192841